Order Code RL34754

The 2009 U.N. Durban Review Conference:Follow-Up to the 2001 U.N. World Conference

Against Racism

November 20, 2008

Luisa BlanchfieldAnalyst in International Relations

Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

The 2009 U.N. Durban Review Conference: Follow-Upto the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism

Summary

In April 2009, U.N. member states will convene in Geneva, Switzerland, for theU.N. Durban Review Conference Against Racism (Review Conference) to examinepossible progress made since the 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism,Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR), held inDurban, South Africa. At WCAR, participating governments, including the UnitedStates, sought to recommend ways for the international community to address racism.The United States withdrew from WCAR because of what it viewed as participatinggovernments’ disproportionate focus on Israel as a perpetrator of racism andintolerance in the Middle East.

The George W. Bush Administration has not participated in Review Conferencepreparations and voted against U.N. resolutions supporting or funding the Conferencebecause of concerns that it may repeat the perceived mistakes of WCAR. TheAdministration has stopped short of announcing it will boycott the Conference, likelyrecognizing that a new Administration will make the final decision on U.S.participation. Canada and Israel announced that they will boycott the ReviewConference, and other governments announced they will not participate unless it isdemonstrated that the Review Conference will not target Israel.

Congressional perspectives on U.S. participation in the Review Conferencevary. Some Members of the 110th Congress have introduced legislation supportingU.S. participation in the Conference, arguing that the United States should play anactive role in combating international racism. (See, for example, H.Res. 1361). OtherMembers contend that the United States should not participate or fund theConference because of WCAR’s focus on Israel. (See S.Amdt. 4264 to S.Con.Res.70.) Specifically, they propose that the United States withhold a proportionate shareof its U.N. assessed contributions that fund the Conference. Because assessedcontributions finance the U.N. regular budget in its entirety and not specific parts ofit, withholding funds in this manner would not affect the Review Conference.

For many, U.S. participation or non-participation in the Review Conferencetouches on the broader issue of U.S. engagement in the U.N. system. Supporterscontend that U.S. participation in U.N. efforts such as the Review Conference isimportant to the success and credibility of the United Nations as a whole. Opponentsmaintain that U.S. engagement in the Conference would give undeserved legitimacyto U.N. mechanisms that provide a platform for member states to target Israel.

This report provides information on the 2001 World Conference AgainstRacism and the circumstances of U.S. withdrawal. It discusses preparations for theDurban Review Conference, including U.S. policy and reaction from othergovernments. It highlights possible issues for the 111th Congress, including theReview Conference preparatory process, U.S. funding of the Conference, and thepolitical and diplomatic impact of U.S. engagement. For related information, seeCRS Report RL33611, United Nations System Funding: Issues for Congress. Thisreport will be updated as events warrant.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview of U.N. Activities to Address Racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Previous U.N. Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2U.S. Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The 2001 World Conference Against Racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Bush Administration Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Anti-Israel Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Slavery and Reparations Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8U.S. Walk-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Congressional Response to WCAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9WCAR Outcomes: The Durban Declaration and Program of Action . . . . . 10

Provisions on the Situation in the Middle East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Provisions on Slavery and Reparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12General Assembly Adoption of Outcome Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Non-governmental Organization (NGO) Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The 2009 Durban Review Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Objectives, Funding, and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14U.S. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Bush Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Participation of Other Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Balance in the Durban Review Preparatory Process? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Scope of the Review Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Composition of the Conference Bureau (Group of 21) . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Organizational Meetings and Intergovernmental Working Group

Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Regional Meeting Outcome Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Draft Review Conference Outcome Document (as of October 16,

2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21U.S. Funding of the Review Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22WCAR Outcome Documents and U.S. Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Political and Diplomatic Impact of U.S. Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1 The OIC is an intergovernmental group of 57 states with a goal to “safeguard and protectthe interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmonyamong various people of the world.” For more information, see [http://www.oic-oci.org/].

The 2009 U.N. Durban Review Conference:Follow-Up to the 2001 U.N. World

Conference Against Racism

Introduction

From April 20 to 24, 2009, United Nations (U.N.) member states will meet inGeneva, Switzerland, for the U.N. Durban Review Conference Against Racism(Review Conference). Some Members of Congress and the Bush Administration areconcerned that the Review Conference will repeat the perceived mistakes of the U.N.World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and RelatedIntolerance (WCAR), which was held in Durban, South Africa, from August 31 toSeptember 7, 2001. At WCAR, participating governments, including the UnitedStates, sought to acknowledge and recommend ways for the international communityto address racism and related intolerance. The Conference attracted a significantamount of national and international attention because of what many viewed asparticipating governments’ disproportionate focus on Israel as a perpetrator of racismand intolerance in the Middle East. The United States withdrew from WCAR when,in its view, it became clear that governments, particularly members of theOrganization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)1, would continue to target Israel whilecontemporary forms of racism remained unaddressed.

In December 2006, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution calling fora Durban Review Conference to assess the implementation of WCAR’s mainoutcome documents — the Durban Declaration and Program of Action. The BushAdministration opposes the Review Conference and has not participated in thepreparatory process or voted for U.N. resolutions supporting or funding it. The finaldecision regarding U.S. participation in the Review Conference, however, will fallto the next Administration. Other countries, including Canada and Israel, haveannounced that they will boycott the Conference, and some governments stated theywill not participate unless it is clear that the Conference will not target Israel.

Members of the 110th Congress demonstrated continued interest in the DurbanReview Conference. Some Members, for example, were concerned that the UnitedStates would fund a U.N. conference that serves as a forum for anti-Semitism. Theyproposed legislation that would withhold a proportionate share of U.S. assessedcontributions to the U.N. regular budget, which funds the Review Conference.Limiting U.S. contributions to the Review Conference in this manner would have no

CRS-2

2 For specific examples of congressional interest in the Review Conference, see the “U.S.Response” under “The 2009 Durban Review Conference” section.

impact on the Review Conference because assessed contributions finance the U.N.regular budget in its entirety and not specific or separate parts of it. Other Membersof Congress recognized the importance of combating racism internationally, and haveproposed and passed resolutions urging the George W. Bush Administration toengage in diplomatic efforts to ensure that the Review Conference does not furtherdiscredit U.N. efforts to address racism by disproportionately focusing on Israel.2

Members of the 111th Congress will likely consider a number of issues whenconducting oversight of the Review Conference and determining appropriate levelsof U.S. participation and financial contributions. Some suggest, for example, thatongoing Review Conference preparations indicate that certain U.N. member stateswill continue to target Israel. Others are concerned about the potential diplomatic orpolitical impact of U.S. participation, or lack thereof. Some, for instance, maintainthat the question of U.S. participation in the Review Conference is inherently linkedto the larger issue of U.S. participation in international organizations. Some areconcerned that a selective approach to U.S. engagement in the United Nations maydamage the reputation and negotiating influence of the United States both within andoutside of the U.N. system. Opponents, however, contend that U.S. participation inthe Review Conference contradicts the objectives of the Conference and wouldprovide legitimacy to U.N. mechanisms that allow member states to criticize Israelin the context of racism.

This report provides background information on previous U.N. efforts to addressracism and the 2001 World Conference Against Racism. The report further discussesthe objectives of the Durban Review Conference, including U.S. policy andresponses from other governments. It examines charges of bias against Israel in thepreparatory process for the Review Conference, potential implications for U.S.participation or non-participation, and the impact of withholding a proportionateshare of U.S. contributions to the Conference from the U.N. regular budget.

Overview of U.N. Activities to Address Racism

The 2001 World Conference Against Racism and the upcoming Durban ReviewConference are part of broader U.N. efforts to address racism and racialdiscrimination.

Previous U.N. Efforts

Since the United Nations was established in 1945, member states have soughtto address racism both in the broader context of human rights and as a stand-aloneissue. Member states, for instance, incorporated the idea of racial equality intointernational documents such as the U.N. Charter in 1945 and the Universal

CRS-3

3 Article 1 of the U.N. Charter, a treaty, notes the importance of racial equality, stating thatthe United Nations should “achieve international co-operation in ... promoting andencouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all withoutdistinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” The Charter was signed on June 26, 1945,and entered into force on October 24, 1945. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,which is non-binding, states, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forthin this Declaration, without distinction of any kind ... such as race, colour, sex, language,religion, political or other opinion...” (Article 2). The Declaration was adopted by the U.N.General Assembly on December 10, 1948, with 48 in favor (including the United States),zero against, and eight abstentions.4 ICERD also establishes a Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to reviewreports from parties about their implementation of Convention provisions and to examinecomplaints by parties. The treaty was adopted and opened for signature and ratification byU.N. General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX), December 21, 1965.5 ICERD entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994. 6 The Sub-Commission was established by the Human Rights Commission during theCommission’s first session in 1946. It was comprised of independent experts who conductedstudies and made recommendations to the Commission concerning the prevention ofdiscrimination of any kind relating to human rights and the protections of racial, national,or religious minorities. In 1999, the U.N. Economic and Social Council changed the title tothe Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. When the HumanRights Commission was replaced by the Human Rights Council in 2006, the Sub-Commission was abolished and replaced by the Human Rights Advisory Committee.7 The Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and relatedintolerance reports to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly on allegedviolations regarding contemporary forms of racism. See [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/racism/rapporteur/index.htm].8 U.N. member states periodically designate years or decades to highlight special issues,

(continued...)

Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.3 Through the 1960s, member statesnegotiated and ratified international agreements and declarations that addressed theissue. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination (ICERD), for example, requires parties to condemn and work toeliminate discrimination in all of its forms, regardless of race, sex, language, orreligion.4 The treaty, which entered into force on January 4, 1969, has been ratifiedor acceded to by 173 U.N. member states. It was ratified by the United States onOctober 21, 1994.5

U.N. member states have also addressed racism through U.N. bodies such as theSub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, themain subsidiary body of the Commission on Human Rights (now the Human RightsCouncil).6 In 1993, the Human Rights Council appointed a Special Rapporteur onracism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia to report to U.N. member states oncontemporary forms of racism.7

In the past three decades, U.N. member states have focused on raising globalawareness of racism and taking measures to address the issue through U.N. “DecadesAgainst Racism” and three global anti-racism conferences.8 During each Decade

CRS-4

8 (...continued)events, or disadvantaged groups, including refugees, the disabled, and women. In 1966, theGeneral Assembly named March 21 the International Day for the Elimination of RacismDiscrimination.9 The First Decade Against Racism focused on measures to implement various U.N. treatiesaddressing racism and racial discrimination. The First World Conference Against Racismwas held in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1978. The Second Decade Against Racism emphasizedrecourse procedures for victims of racial discrimination and focused on the elimination ofapartheid. At the Second World Conference Against Racism, held in Geneva in 1982,participants reviewed and assessed the activities of the First Decade Against Racism.10 U.N. document A/RES/3379 (XXX), November 10, 1975. The resolution passed with avote of 72 in favor and 35 against, 32 abstentions, and three absent. 11 “U.S. Participation in the United Nations, Report by the President to the Congress for theYear 1975,” Department of State, p. 213.12 U.N. document, A/RES/46/86, December 16, 1991, 111 in favor, 25 against, and 13abstentions.13 Then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan called resolution 3379 a “low point” in Israel’srelationship with the United Nations, stating that the “negative resonance [of the resolution]... is difficult to overestimate,” U.N. press release SG/SM/6504/Rev.1, March 25, 1998.14 U.S. Participation in the United Nations, Report by the President to the Congress for theYear 1977, Department of State, p. 172.

Against Racism — 1973 to 1982, 1983 to 1992, and 1993 to 2002 — participatingU.N. member states held world conferences against racism, including the 2001 WorldConference in Durban, South Africa.9 At each Conference, U.N. member statesnegotiated programs of action that would be implemented by governments and U.N.specialized agencies, funds, and programs.

Some U.N. member state efforts to address racism in U.N. fora have beencontroversial. Probably the most notorious effort occurred in 1975, when memberstates adopted General Assembly resolution 3379, which stated that Zionism is aform a racism and racial discrimination.10 The United States strongly opposed theresolution, stating that it treated racism not as a serious injustice, but as an “epithetto be flung at whoever [sic] happens to be one’s adversary.”11 Sixteen years later, onDecember 16, 1991, the General Assembly adopted a resolution to revoke resolution3379.12 Despite its repeal, many argue that the adoption of resolution 3379 greatlydiminished the credibility of U.N. efforts to address racism and had a lasting andadverse effect on relations among U.N. member states — particularly among Israeland other Middle Eastern countries.13

U.S. Role

The United States did not participate in the 1978 and 1985 World ConferencesAgainst Racism because of its strong opposition to resolution 3379.14 The BushAdministration decided, however, to participate in the 2001 World ConferenceAgainst Racism — in large part because of the 1991 General Assembly decision torevoke resolution 3379.

CRS-5

15 On May 25, 1994, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations favorably reported ICERDto the full Senate (S. Exec. Rept. 103-29), and on June 24, 1994, the Senate provided adviceand consent to U.S. ratification.16 P.L. 99-90, August 15, 1985 (S.J.Res. 98), “A joint resolution condemning the passageof Resolution 3379 in the United Nations General Assembly ... and urging the United StatesAmbassador and United States Delegation to take all appropriate actions necessary to erasethis shameful resolution from the record of the United Nations.”17 See S.Con.Res. 73 (94th Congress), “Resolution relating to the United Nations andZionism,” passed by the Senate on November 12, 1975; and H.Con.Res. 73 (94th Congress),“Resolution relating to the United Nations and Zionism,”passed on November 12, 1975.18 Drawn from U.N. document, A/RES/52/111, December 12, 1997. For more informationon Conference objectives, see [http://www.un.org/WCAR/e-kit/backgrounder1.htm].19 U.N. document, A/RES/52/111, December 12, 1997. The then-U.N. High Commissionerfor Human Rights was Mary Robinson of Ireland. The U.N. Human Rights Commission wasreplaced by the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2006 as the primary intergovernmentalpolicymaking body for human rights issues. The Commission was widely criticized whenperceived human rights abusers were elected as members. For more information, see CRSReport RL33608, The United Nations Human Rights Council: Issues for Congress, by LuisaBlanchfield.

Congressional response to U.N. efforts to address racism has varied over time.Members have supported U.N. mechanisms that address racism, such as ICERD.15

On the other hand, Congress has condemned the efforts of some U.N. member statesto address racism that appear to target Israel. Many Members were particularlycritical of General Assembly resolution 3379 and adopted a joint resolutioncondemning its passage.16 Members also generally agreed with the U.S. decisionsnot to participate in the first two U.N. Decades Against Racism and first two WorldConferences Against Racism.17

The 2001 World Conference Against Racism

The World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia andRelated Intolerance (WCAR or the Conference) was held in Durban, South Africa,from August 31 to September 7, 2001. Conference objectives included (1) reviewingprogress made in the fight against racism, xenophobia, and intolerance; (2) increasingthe level of awareness about racism; and (3) recommending ways to increase U.N.effectiveness through programs that combat racism and related intolerance.Conference participants also aimed to recommend ways to improve regional,national, and international measures to combat racism, and ensure that the UnitedNations had the resources to combat racism.18 Unlike previous World Conferencesthat focused primarily on racism and racial discrimination, WCAR also addressedissues related to xenophobia and related intolerance.

The U.N. General Assembly designated the U.N. Commission on Human Rights(now the Human Rights Council) as the Conference preparatory committee,19 anddirected that the Conference secretariat operate out of the Office of the U.N. High

CRS-6

20 The General Assembly decided in resolution 54/154, December 17, 1999, that WCARwould be held in Durban, South Africa, and that regional and organizational meetings wouldbe held to prepare for the Conference. 21 U.N. document, A/RES/54/154, December 17, 1999. NGOs may participate in WCARas provided for in U.N. Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31, July 25, 1996.22 In 2000 and 2001, governments held three preparatory sessions in Geneva, Switzerland.Governments also held regional sessions in various countries. The European group met inFrance, the Americas group met in Chile, the African group met in Senegal, and the Asiangroup met in Iran. In 1999 and 2000, regional expert seminars were held in Ethiopia,Thailand, Switzerland, Chile, and Poland, where participants focused on issues such asprotecting minorities, and economic and social measures for vulnerable groups. 23 The Group of 21 comprised representatives from each of the five regions and a Chairman.It was chaired by South Africa, the host government. Members were Barbados, Brazil,Chile, and Mexico (Latin America and Caribbean); Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tunisia(Africa); Canada, France, Sweden, and the United States (Western Europe and others);Czech Republic, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the RussianFederation (Eastern Europe); and India, Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq (Asia ). 24 U.N. document, A/RES/52/11, December 12, 1997, adopted without a vote.25 The WCAR Task Force was chaired by the Department of Justice and included the

(continued...)

Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).20 Participation was open torepresentatives from all U.N. member states, U.N. bodies and programs, regionalorganizations and commissions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), andintergovernmental organizations.21 Approximately 2,300 representatives from 163countries attended WCAR, and nearly 4,000 NGO representatives were accredited.The Conference was funded through the U.N. regular budget and voluntarycontributions from U.N. member states.

To prepare for WCAR, participating governments held a number of regional andorganizational meetings where they made decisions related to the scope and agendaof the Conference.22 At the regional sessions, for example, governments draftedDeclarations and Programs of Action for their regions. At the second session of thePreparatory Committee, held in May 2001, governments established a working groupof 21 states (Group of 21), which included the United States.23 The groupsynthesized the outcome documents from regional meetings into the draft Declarationand Program of Action (hereafter “outcome documents”) that was considered at theConference. Though the outcome documents were non-binding, many countriesconsidered them crucial to the success of WCAR because they provided internationalguidance and credibility for governments and organizations aiming to combat racism.

Bush Administration Position

Initially, the United States supported the World Conference on Racism. InDecember 1997, the Clinton Administration co-sponsored the U.N. GeneralAssembly resolution that decided to convene the Conference24 and established aninteragency Task Force (WCAR Task Force) to coordinate U.S. participation in theConference.25 The Bush Administration supported the Conference and continued to

CRS-7

25 (...continued)Department of State and the Small Business Administration. It solicited input from NGOs,coordinated government preparations for the Conference, and drew from the expertise ofgovernment agencies. It was represented on U.S. delegations to Preparatory Committeemeetings and inter-sessional meetings. The Task Force office closed on September 30, 2001.26 Statement of William B. Wood, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau ofInternational Organization Affairs, Department of State, at a hearing before the HouseSubcommittee on International Operations, “A Discussion on the U.N. World ConferenceAgainst Racism,” July 31, 2001, U.S. Government Printing Office, Serial No. 107-36.27 According to Administration officials, at the meetings the United States attempted to (1)acknowledge historic injustices against Africans, Native Americans, and others; (2) focusthe work of the Conference on present day manifestations of racism and intolerance, andhow to combat them; and (3) share U.S. experiences with the world and learn from othercountries. Ibid, p. 29.28 U.N. document, A/CONF.189/PC.2/9, April 10, 2001.29 U.N. document, A/CONF.189/PC.3/7, July 12, 2001, p. 18. The draft stated, “The WorldConference recognizes with deep concern the increase of racist practices of Zionism andanti-Semitism in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violencemovements based on discriminatory ideas, in particular, the Zionist movement which isbased on racial superiority.”30 President Bush stated, “We have made it very clear ... we will not participate in aconference that tries to isolate Israel and denigrates Israel.” Office of the Press Secretary,The White House, August 24, 2001.

support the Task Force. It also agreed to pay the U.S. share of the Conference costsand to provide an additional $250,000 in voluntary contributions to the U.N.Secretariat.26 In addition, the Administration participated in Preparatory Committeeand Group of 21 discussions.27 As preparations for WCAR progressed, however, theBush Administration increasingly expressed concern with two issues: anti-Israellanguage in the draft outcome documents, and proposals for reparations andcompensation for victims of slavery.

Anti-Israel Language. In February 2001, at the Asian regional preparatorymeeting in Iran, members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)included language in the region’s outcome documents that appeared to target Israel.28

Some of the controversial text from the regional meeting was incorporated into theoutcome documents negotiated at the Conference. Initial drafts of the WCARDeclaration, for example, included language that equated Zionism with racism.29

Some countries, including the United States, Canada, and members of the EuropeanUnion, strongly objected to these sentiments. They argued that WCAR was thewrong forum in which to raise the Israel-Palestine issue, and emphasized thatindividual countries and regional conflicts should not be singled out in Conferenceoutcome documents. Countries in support of the text argued that the Israelioccupation of Palestine was racially motivated and therefore should be addressed atWCAR.

The Administration emphasized that it would not participate in the Conferenceif language in the draft outcome documents continued to target Israel.30

Consequently, there were some questions regarding the level and extent of U.S.

CRS-8

31 The Head of the U.S. delegation was Michael E. Southwick, Deputy Assistant Secretaryof State for International Organization Affairs. Daily Press Briefing by SpokespersonRichard Boucher, U.S. Department of State, August 29, 2001.32 U.N. document, A/CONF.189/PC.2/8, March 27, 2001.33 Moreover, the draft Program of Action requested member states that “practiced andbenefitted from the trans-Atlantic slave trade ... to initiate a constructive dialogue withpeople of African descent in order to identify and implement measures for ethical and moralsatisfaction,” U.N. document, A/CONF.189/PC.3/8, July 12, 2001, p. 45.34 Statement of William B. Wood, U.S. Department of State, at a hearing before the HouseSubcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee onInternational Relations, “A Discussion on the U.N. World Conference Against Racism,”July 31, 2001, U.S. Government Printing Office, Serial No. 107-36, p. 31.35 Ibid. Assistant Secretary Wood also stated, “It is not clear what would be the legal orpractical effect of a call for reparations for injustices more than a century old. Nor is it clearthat such a call would contribute to eliminate racism in the contemporary world.” Forfurther discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RS20740, Proposals for Reparations forAfrican Americans: A Brief Overview, by Garrine P. Laney.

participation, and, in late August 2001, the Administration announced that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell would not attend WCAR. The Administration statedthat it would instead send a mid-level working delegation.31

Slavery and Reparations Language. The United States also expressedconcern with language in the draft WCAR outcome documents that addressedreparations and compensation for slavery. At the African regional meeting inSenegal in 2001, participating governments agreed to language that requested anapology from states involved in the slave trade, as well as compensation andreparations for victims of racial discrimination and slavery.32 Some of this proposedlanguage was included in the outcome documents considered at Durban. The draftProgram of Action, for example, urged countries to protect against racism byensuring that all persons have access to “adequate remedies ... and adequatereparations” for damage resulting from racial discrimination. The draft Declarationalso expressed “explicit and unreserved apologies” to victims of slavery and theirheirs.33 The trans-Atlantic slave trade, in particular, was cited several times in thedraft outcome documents.

In July 2001, the Administration called the specific mention of trans-Atlanticslavery in the proposed Durban drafts “extreme and unbalanced,” noting that itsmention was “selective,” and “inconsistent with the goals of WCAR.”34 TheAdministration further stated that there was no consensus in the United States on thereparations issue,35 and noted that the United States had consistently opposed callsfor reparations and would continue to do so. Assistant Secretary Wood further statedthat the United States was ready to join WCAR participants in expressing regret forhistoric injustices such as slavery. He also emphasized that the purpose of WCARwas to focus on contemporary manifestations of racism and intolerance. TheAdministration advocated what it described as a “future-oriented approach” on the

CRS-9

36 Such programs included the New African Initiative — renamed the New Partnership forAfrica’s Development. See CRS Report RS21353, New Partnership for Africa’sDevelopment, by Nicolas Cook.37 U.S. Participation in the United Nations for 2003, Report by the President to theCongress, Department of State, March 2003, p. 65. Secretary Powell stated, “I know thatyou do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hatefullanguage ... or support the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggeststhat apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world — Israel —for censure and abuse,” Department of State Press Release, September 3, 2001.38 The State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor provided $25,000to help develop a WCAR website. See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/32959.htm].39 On July 30, 2001, for instance, the House of Representatives passed a resolution statingthat the Conference presented a “unique opportunity” to address global discrimination, buturged participants to address such prejudice without targeting specific regions or countries.See H.Res. 212 (107th Congress), “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives thatthe World Conference Against Racism ... presents a unique opportunity to address globaldiscrimination,” introduced by Rep. Tom Lantos on July 27, 2001, and passed by a vote of408 to 3 on July 30, 2001.40 Statement by Rep. Julia Carson at a House Subcommittee on International Operationshearing, “A Discussion on the U.N. World Conference Against Racism,” July 31, 2001, U.S.Government Printing Office, Serial No. 107-36, p. 22.

reparations issue, expressing support for programs that aimed to overcome Africa’sdevelopment challenges.36

U.S. Walk-Out. At the Conference, the United States participated in initialnegotiations. When it became clear that the anti-Israel language would not beremoved, however, the U.S. delegation withdrew under instructions from then-Secretary of State Powell.37 Israel joined the United States in withdrawing from theConference. Because of its withdrawal, the United States did not pay $250,000 involuntary contributions to WCAR.38

Congressional Response to WCAR

Some Members of Congress viewed WCAR as a crucial internationalmechanism for combating racism and supported full U.S. participation. Others,however, were concerned that language in the draft outcome documents appeared totarget Israel, and urged the Administration not to participate if such languageremained.39 Some Members viewed WCAR as an opportunity to address historic andcontemporary factors that may have contributed to present-day racism. They urgedthe Administration to participate regardless of controversial text in the draft outcomedocuments, arguing that the United States could bring balance to the issue.40 SomeMembers also viewed the Conference as an opportunity for the United States toacknowledge its role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and disagreed with theAdministration’s position that slavery reparations should not be discussed at the

CRS-10

41 Ibid, statement of Rep. Barbara Lee, p. 16.42 Then-chair of the CBC Eddie Bernice-Johnson stated that it was “incumbent on the UnitedStates ... to ensure that this World Conference and any forum that seeks to address the issueof racism achieves it objectives to end this egregious violation here and abroad,” “Bush’sWCAR Representative has no Comment,” by Hazel Trice Edney, National NewspaperPublishers Association, September 3, 2001.43 Members of the 2001 WCAR delegation included Reps. John Conyers, Eddie BerniceJohnson, Tom Lantos, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Diane Watson.44 “Transcript: Lantos Says Success of Racism Conference in Doubt,” U.S. Department ofState, August 9, 2001.45 See, for example, statements of Reps. Barbara Lee and Diane Watson, CongressionalRecord, pp. H5446-H5448 (1645-1700), September 6, 2001.46 The Declaration and Program of Action were adopted on September 8, 2001. They areavailable at [http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/Durban.pdf].47 Paragraph one of the Durban Declaration states that “the victims of racism, racialdiscrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are individuals or groups of individualswho are or have been negatively affected by, subjected to, or targets of these scourges.”48 Paragraph two of the Declaration recognizes that “racism, racial discrimination,xenophobia and related intolerance occur on the grounds of race, colour, descent or nationalor ethnic origin and that victims can suffer multiple or aggravated forms of discriminationbased on other related grounds such as sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,social origin, property, birth or other status.”

Conference.41 Some Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) wereparticularly supportive of WCAR’s objectives and full U.S. participation.42

Members who attended the Conference as part of a congressional delegationheld differing views on the U.S. withdrawal.43 Some argued that singling out onecountry (Israel) in Conference outcome documents was unacceptable, and maintainedthat the Israel-Palestine dispute was not a racial issue.44 Other Members disagreedwith the U.S. decision to withdraw and emphasized that the United States should notallow one issue to overshadow the Conference’s overall purpose of combatingracism.45

WCAR Outcomes: The Durban Declaration and Program of Action

After the United States and Israel withdrew from the Conference, the remainingmember states engaged in a series of intense and difficult negotiations that resultedin WCAR’s main outcome documents — the Durban Declaration and Program ofAction.46 These documents created international definitions and established newU.N. mechanisms to address racism and other related issues. In the Program ofAction, for example, governments agreed to definitions of “victims of racism”47 and“grounds for discrimination.”48 Governments also decided to establish an anti-discrimination unit within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

CRS-11

49 The Discrimination Unit, now called the “Anti-Racial Discrimination Unit,” compiles dataon racism, provides legal and administrative support to victims of racism, and collectsbackground materials provided by states and NGOs under WCAR follow-up mechanisms.50 Five experts, representing different regions, are appointed by the U.N. Secretary-Generalfrom among candidates proposed by the Chairperson of the Human Rights Council, afterconsultation with the regional groups. For the list of experts and further information, see[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/racism/groups/eminent-experts/index.htm].51 Durban Program of Action, paragraph 66.52 U.N. Information Service Press Release, GA/SHC/3681, “Opposing Views Expressed asThird Committee Considers Final Document of Durban Conference on Racism,” February1, 2002. 53 See, for example, Darren Dick, “The United Nations World Conference Against Racism,”The Indigenous Law Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 13, November/December 2001.54 See “Human Rights Watch, Caste at the World Conference Against Racism,” at[http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/caste/]. For more information on the caste system in India,see CRS Report RL33529, India-U.S. Relations, by K. Alan Kronstadt.55 Prior to the adoption of the outcome documents, statements and reservations were madeby Australia, Belgium (on behalf of the EU), Canada, Chile, Ecuador (on behalf of Brazil,Canada, Chile, and Guatemala), Iran, Syria, and Switzerland. For a list of reservations bycountry, see the Report of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, U.N. document, A/CONF.189/12, pp. 117-144.56 Paragraph 99 of the Declaration acknowledges and profoundly regrets “the massivehuman suffering and the tragic plight of millions of men, women and children caused byslavery, the slave trade, the transatlantic slave trade, apartheid, colonialism and genocide.”

(OHCHR),49 and requested that OHCHR work with five independent experts tofollow up on the implementation of provisions in the Declaration and Program ofAction.50 The outcome documents also urged member states to establish andimplement national policies and action plans to address racism, racial discrimination,and related intolerance.51

Some observers expressed concern that WCAR’s focus on Israel and Palestineovershadowed other aspects of the Conference. Some, for example, spoke positivelyof the outcome documents’ focus on the vital role of human rights institutions incombating racism. Many supported the outcome documents’ focus on education andthe role of good governance in addressing racial discrimination.52 Yet, somemaintain that WCAR’s focus on Israel and Palestine diverted attention from subjectsthat they believe WCAR should have addressed more effectively — such as the rightsof indigenous people53 and specific instances of contemporary racism — such ascaste discrimination in India.54

Prior to the adoption of the Declaration and Program of Action, however, somegovernments disassociated themselves from or expressed reservations about specificprovisions in the text — particularly those that addressed the situation in the MiddleEast, the impact of historic injustices such as slavery and colonialism, and the rightsof indigenous peoples.55 Some countries also disagreed with text that appeared toequate colonialism with slavery and genocide.56

CRS-12

57 Paragraph 161 of the Program of Action calls for respect for international human rightsand humanitarian law, as well as for the principle of self-determination and the end of allsuffering, “thus allowing Israel and the Palestinians to resume the peace process, and todevelop and prosper in security and freedom.”58 Representatives from Canada stated, “We are not satisfied with this Conference. Notenough time has been dedicated to advancing its objectives.... We believe, we have said inthe clearest possible terms, that it was inappropriate — wrong — to address the Palestinian-Israel conflict in this forum,” U.N. document, A/CONF.189/12, p. 119.59 For this reason, Iran dissociated itself with text addressing the Middle East. U.N.document, A/CONF.189/12, pp. 125-126.60 Durban Declaration, paragraph 13. Additionally, paragraph 100 notes that some have“taken the initiative of regretting or expressing remorse or presenting apologies.” It stronglycondemns the fact that slavery and slavery-like practices still exist. Paragraph 29 furtherurges states to “take immediate measures as a matter of priority to end such practices.”61 Durban Program of Action, paragraph 158.62 Ibid, paragraph 166.63 Ibid, paragraph 158.64 Specifically, it encouraged support for mechanisms such as the New African Initiative andthe World Solidarity Fund for the Eradication of Poverty.

Provisions on the Situation in the Middle East. In the final WCARoutcome documents, governments expressed concern about the “plight of thePalestinian people under foreign occupation” and recognized “the inalienable rightof the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of anindependent State.”57 They also called for the “the end of violence and the swiftresumption of negotiations” in the Middle East. The outcome documents did notinclude text equating Zionism with racism. Members of the European Union viewedthe final language as an improvement over previous drafts that appeared to repeatedlytarget Israel. Other countries, however, maintained that the situation in the MiddleEast should not be addressed at WCAR because it was a political situation rather thana racial one. Canada, in particular, disassociated itself from text that directly orindirectly mentioned the situation in the Middle East.58 Conversely, some countriesargued that the text did not go far enough to address the situation in the Palestinianterritories.59

Provisions on Slavery and Reparations. The Declaration acknowledgedslavery and the slave trade, including the trans-Atlantic slave trade, as a “crimeagainst humanity,” and invited the international community to express regret orremorse for slavery.60 The Program of Action also recognized that slavery has“undeniably contributed” to poverty and underdevelopment.61 It urged countries toreinforce protection against racism by ensuring that all persons enjoy the right to seekjust and adequate reparations from damage resulting from discrimination.62 Further,it recognized the need to develop programs for the social and economic developmentof societies impacted by historic injustices such as slavery.63 It called on developedcountries and the U.N. system to support development mechanisms, particularly inAfrica.64 The outcome documents did not call for reparations or an explicit apology

CRS-13

65 See statements by the representatives of Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, U.N.document, A/CONF.189/12, pp. 128 and 130, respectively. Also see the Declaration andProgram of Action from the African Regional Meeting in Senegal, U.N. document,A/CONF.189/PC.2/8, March 27, 2001.66 U.N. document, A/RES/56/266, March 27, 2002.67 The U.S. statement is available in U.N. document, A/56/PV.97, March 27, 2002, p. 3. 68 The Forum, which was held from August 21 to September 1, 2001, was organized andmanaged by NGOs; however, the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) received voluntary contributions from donors to fund the event. OHCHR alsofunded the participation of some NGOs.69 “WCAR NGO Forum Declaration,” September 3, 2001, paragraphs 160 and 162.Paragraph 425 calls for the “condemnation of those states who are supporting, aiding andabetting the Israeli Apartheid state.”70 “ERRC Dissociates Itself from WCAR NGO Forum,” European Roma Rights Center,September 5, 2001. Since WCAR, other NGOs have expressed regret over the outcome ofthe Forum and pledged to learn from the shortcomings of WCAR. See “Statement of CorePrinciples For WCAR Follow-Up,” signed by over 90 NGOs, available at[http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/disc/2008/alert/207/index.htm].

for historical injustices such as slavery. Consequently, some African and Caribbeanstates maintained that the Conference did not sufficiently address the issue.65

General Assembly Adoption of Outcome Documents. In March 2002,the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution on the Durban Declaration andProgram of Action that endorsed the implementation of the outcome documents,urged U.N. member states to create national action plans and policies to combatslavery, and called for the creation of the Anti-Discrimination Unit and a Group ofExperts to follow up on implementation of Durban outcomes.66 One hundred andthirty-four countries voted for the resolution, two opposed it (United States andIsrael), and two abstained (Australia and Canada). When explaining its vote, theUnited States stated that because it withdrew from the WCAR, it did not agree to theDurban Declaration and Program of Action. It opposed the creation of theDiscrimination Unit and the group of experts, arguing that the cost of the newmechanisms would place additional pressure on the U.N. regular budget.67

Non-governmental Organization (NGO) Forum

Representatives from local, national, and international NGOs held an NGOForum parallel to the Conference in Durban.68 At its conclusion, Forum participantsagreed to the NGO WCAR Declaration, which a number of observers viewed as anunbalanced document that disproportionately focused on Israel. Specifically, theDeclaration called for the end of “Israeli systematic perpetration of racist crimes,including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing,” and declared Israel a“racist, apartheid state.”69 Because of the highly politicized wording of theDeclaration, some NGOs disassociated themselves from the final text.70 Then-U.N.High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson described the NGO Forum

CRS-14

71 See joint NGO document, “Statement of Core Principles For WCAR Follow-Up.” 72 “NGO Forum at Durban Conference 2001,” NGO Monitor, available at[http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_forum_at_durban_conference_].73 U.N. document, A/RES/61/149, December 19, 2006, adopted 179 votes to two, with fourabstentions. The United States and Israel voted against the resolution, with Australia,Canada, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, abstaining.74 U.N. Office at Geneva press release, “Review Conference on Racism, Discrimination, andIntolerance to be Held in Geneva in April 2009,” May 27, 2008.75 U.N. document, A/62/375, October 2, 2007, p. 36.76 The Human Rights Council replaced the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in 2006.77 More information on the Group of 21 is available in the “Balance in the Durban Review

(continued...)

as “hateful, even racist,” and refused to receive or endorse the NGO Declaration.71

The Forum attracted significant attention from the international media, and someargued that it overshadowed the Conference itself.72

The 2009 Durban Review Conference

Since WCAR, U.N. member states increasingly explored the possibility ofholding a follow-up conference to review progress made on the implementation ofthe Durban Declaration and Program of Action. On December 19, 2006, the U.N.General Assembly adopted a resolution deciding to convene the Durban ReviewConference.73 The Conference will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, from April 20to 24, 2009.74

Objectives, Funding, and Participation

At the Conference, governments aim to

! review the progress and assess implementation of the Durbanoutcome documents by all stakeholders, including assessingcontemporary manifestations of racism;

! assess the effectiveness of the existing Durban follow-up

mechanisms and other related U.N. programs; and

! identify and share good practices achieved in combating racism.75

The preparatory process for the Review Conference is similar to the process forWCAR. The U.N. Human Rights Council, for instance, is the PreparatoryCommittee for the Review Conference.76 All U.N. member states were invited tojoin the Review Conference Preparatory Committee to determine the objectives ofthe Conference. The Committee elected a Bureau composed of one chairperson and20 vice-chairpersons (Group of 21) to decide on the objectives of the ReviewConference.77 As with WCAR, governments are engaging in organizational,

CRS-15

77 (...continued)Preparatory Process?” section, and [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/racism/DurbanReview/bureau.htm].78 This is lower than a preliminary Secretariat estimate of $6,794,700 due to a number ofdevelopments, including the decision of some regional groups to cancel regional sessions.Moreover, OHCHR was able to absorb some additional costs within existing resources.(CRS discussions with OHCHR, October 2008.) The preliminary estimate is available inU.N. document, A/C.5/62/21, December 14, 2007.79 See “Programme Budget Implications of Draft Resolution A/C.3/63/L.51/Rev.1,Statement Submitted by the Secretary-General in Accordance with Rule 153 of the Rulesof Procedure of the General Assembly,” U.N. document A/C.3/63/L.70 [draft], November17, 2008.80 CRS discussions with OHCHR, October 2008. OHCHR is funded by the U.N. regularbudget, for which the United States is assessed at 22%. For more information on U.N.funding, see CRS Report RL33611, United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues,by Marjorie Ann Browne and Kennon H. Nakamura.81 NGOs are encouraged to participate as observers in the Review Conference, includingpreparatory meetings. They may participate in the Review Conference, as provided for inU.N. Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31, July 25, 1996.82 NGOs would decide whether to hold a Forum, however the U.N. General Assembly woulddetermine whether its venue will be on U.N. premises. Marc Perelman, “U.N. and the WestTrying to Prevent Another Anti-Israel ‘Durban’ Meeting,” The Forward, October 8, 2008.

substantive, and regional meetings to determine the scope of the Conference andagree to regional outcome documents. (For more information on these meetings, seethe “Issues for Congress” section.)

The Review Conference is funded through assessed contributions to the U.N.regular budget and through voluntary contributions from member states andorganizations. On November 17, 2008, a report from the Secretary-Generalestimated that the overall additional financial requirements for the Durban ReviewConference and its preparatory process was $3,754,800.78 The Secretary-General willask for only $570,400 because he anticipates that the remaining balance of$3,184,400 will be absorbed by other human rights-related parts of the U.N. regularbudget.79 Funding for the Conference and the Human Rights Council does notoverlap. Both the Council and the Review Conference are funded under separateparts of the OHCHR budget.80

Participation in the Review Conference is open to U.N. member states, U.N.bodies and programs, regional organizations and commissions, intergovernmentalorganizations, and NGOs.81 It is unclear whether an NGO Forum will be heldparallel to the Conference.82

U.S. Response

Bush Administration. The Bush Administration has consistently opposeda Durban Review Conference. It has, however, stopped short of announcing it willboycott the Conference, likely recognizing that a new Administration would make

CRS-16

83 See U.N. General Assembly Resolution 61/149, December 19, 2006, which decided toconvene the Review Conference.84 The United States joined consensus for the resolution, Programme Budget for theBiennium 2008-2009 (resolution 62/237, December 22, 2007), but only after calling for avote on a related resolution, Questions Relating to the Proposed Programme Budget for theBiennium 2008-2009 (resolution 62/236, December 22, 2007). The United States wasconcerned that the ad hoc nature of the Secretary-General’s approach to the budget couldallow the Durban Review Conference to be funded through the U.N. regular budget. See“Voting Practices in the United Nations — 2007,” Department of State, pp. 136-137.85 According to Administration officials, the United States has sent a note-taker to theReview Conference preparatory meetings to ensure an accurate report of the proceedings.U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release #075(08), “Statement by ZalmayKhalilzad, U.S. Permanent Representative, on the Durban II Conference and the HumanRights Council,” April 8, 2008.86 Ibid. Ambassador Khalilzad did not define or describe what actions constitute “anti-Semitic behavior.”87 Ibid. Similarly, at a House Subcommittee on International Organizations hearing,Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Kristin Silverberg stated,“We will be withholding our funding this year for the Human Rights Council ... and also forDurban ... so we will be withholding the U.S. share of funding for both....” United NationsPeacekeeping Operations: An Underfunded International Mandate — The Role of theUnited States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Serial No. 110-161, April 2, 2008, p. 19.88 H.R. 5847, the United Nations Durban Review Conference (Durban II) FundingProhibition Act of 2008, introduced by Rep. Scott Garrett on April 17, 2008, and referredto the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the same day; and H.Res. 879, “Objecting to UnitedNations funding of the Durban Review Conference using the United Nations regularbudget,” introduced by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, on December 17, 2007, and referred to

(continued...)

the final decision regarding participation. The United States, along with Israel, votedagainst the General Assembly resolution calling for the Review Conference inDecember 2006.83 Similarly, in December 2007, the United States voted against aresolution related to the biennium budget for 2008-2009, primarily because itincluded funding for the Conference.84 The Administration also declined toparticipate in the preparatory events for the Review Conference, and has consistentlyvoted against U.N. General Assembly resolutions that support or fund the ReviewConference.85

On April 8, 2008, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzadannounced, “the United States is not participating in the process and we have noplans to do so. We will not participate unless it is proven that the conference will notbe used as a platform for anti-Semitic behavior.”86 The Ambassador also announcedthat the United States will withhold a portion of its 2008 contribution to the U.N.regular budget that would fund the U.N. Human Rights Council, including money forthe preparatory process for the Review Conference.87

110th Congress. Members of the 110th Congress demonstrated an interest inthe Review Conference. Some Members introduced legislation stating the UnitedStates should not participate in the Conference because of WCAR’s focus on Israel.88

CRS-17

88 (...continued)the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the same day.89 S.Amdt. 4264 “To deny funding for the United Nations Durban II Anti-RacismConference,” to S.Con.Res. 70, “An original concurrent resolution setting forth thecongressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009....” Sen. NormColeman introduced the amendment March 12, 2008, and it was agreed to by unanimousconsent on March 13, 2008. The Senate agreed to S.Con.Res. 70 by a vote of 48 to 45 onJune 4, 2008, and House agreed to it by a vote of 214 to 210 on June 5, 2008.90 See, for example, “Coleman Continues to urge State not to Participate in the Durban IIConference,” Office of Senator Norm Coleman, February 8, 2008.91 H.Res. 1361 also aims to defeat “the campaign by some members of the Organization ofthe Islamic Conference to divert the United Nations Durban Review Conference from areview of problems in their own and other countries by attacking Israel, promoting anti-Semitism, and undermining the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” It was introducedby Rep. Howard Berman on July 22, 2008, and passed by a voice vote on September 23,2008.92 Canadian representatives stated that they hoped the Review Conference would “remedymistakes of the past,” but based on preparations for the Conference, the governmentconcluded that it would not. Press Release No. 16, “Canada Takes a Firm Stance on UnitedNations World Conference Against Racism,” Foreign Affairs and International TradeCanada, January 23, 2008.93 The government of the Netherlands stated it will not accept any attempts to call Israel aracist state, and would not hesitate to withdraw if similar events occur, “Netherlands Willnot Accept Anti-Semitic Slurs,” Radio Netherlands Worldwide, May 18, 2008.94 “Speech by the President of the French Republic” at the Annual Dinner for theRepresentative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, February 13, 2008.

On March 13, 2008, the Senate unanimously passed an amendment to the FY2009Budget Resolution to deny funding to the Durban Review Conference.89 SomeMembers also expressed opposition to U.S. funding of or participation in the ReviewConference in correspondence with Administration officials.90 Nevertheless, someMembers viewed the Conference as a key opportunity to address international racism.On September 23, 2008, for example, the House adopted a resolution expressing thesense of the House that the United States should lead a high-level diplomatic effortto ensure that the Durban Review Conference serves as a forum to reviewimplementation of commitments made at the 2001 Durban Conference, rather thanas a vehicle for anti-Semitism.91

Participation of Other Governments

A number of governments have concerns about the Review Conference. InJanuary 2008, Canada announced that it would boycott the Conference because ofindications that it would repeat the mistakes of WCAR.92 Other countries announcedthat they will not participate if it becomes evident that the Review Conference willtarget Israel.93 French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated that France will “not allowa repeat of the digressions and extremes of 2001.”94 Representatives of the UnitedKingdom announced that the government would not participate in an internationalconference with the “degree of anti-Semitism that was disgracefully on view” at

CRS-18

95 “Oral Answers to Questions, Durban II.” U.K. House of Commons Debates — Foreignand Commonwealth Office,” May 13, 2008.96 Address by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 24, 2008; and Tovah Lazaroff, “IsraelFirm on Boycotting Durban II Despite U.N. Plea,” Jerusalem Post, September 2, 2008.97 “Israel Will Not Participate in the Durban 2 Conference,” Israel Ministry of ForeignAffairs press release, November 19, 2008.98 Address by Ms. Navanethem Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on theoccasion of the opening of the 9th Session of the Human Rights Council, September 8, 2008.99 Statement by H.E. Ambassador Francisco Xavier Esteves of Portugal on Behalf of theEuropean Union, Opening Statement, Organizational Session of the Preparatory Committeeof the Durban Review Conference, August 27, 2007.

WCAR.95 Initially, Israel stated that it would boycott the Review Conference unlessit was proven that the Conference would not be used as a platform for further anti-Israeli sentiments and activities.96 In November 2008, however, Israel formallyannounced it would not participate in the Conference, stating that the Conference“appears to be heading once again towards becoming an anti-Israel tribunal, whichhas nothing to do with fighting racism.”97 U.N. High Commissioner for HumanRights Navanethem Pillay urged countries that announced they may not participatein the Conference to reconsider. She argued that the anti-racism debate and agendawill be significantly compromised without the participation of all countries.98

Issues for Congress

Members of the 111th Congress may wish to consider a number of issues whenconducting oversight and considering U.S. funding for the Durban ReviewConference and possible follow-up activities.

Balance in the Durban Review Preparatory Process?

Bush Administration officials and some Members of Congress have suggestedthat the United States should participate in the Durban Review Conference only if itis proven that the Conference will (1) focus primarily on the implementation of theDurban Declaration and Program of Action and (2) not become a vehicle for anti-Semitism. Consequently, Members of the 111th Congress may wish to consider U.N.member state actions during the Review Conference preparatory process.

Scope of the Review Conference. During the preparatory process,participating governments have aimed to determine the scope and agenda of theConference. Countries such as Australia, Canada, and Israel, and members of theEuropean Union, maintain that the Conference should focus primarily on memberstate and U.N. system implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program ofAction instead of reopening controversial issues agreed to at WCAR.99 Some hopethat by concentrating on the implementation of WCAR outcomes, participants canachieve a broad consensus and avoid repeating the perceived mistakes of the previous

CRS-19

100 Disagreements over Review Conference objectives are reflected in member state votesfor and against U.N. General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions that addressConference objectives and funding. Australia, Canada, and the United States, for example,voted against resolution A/C.3/62/L.65/Rev.1 (November 27, 2007) in the U.N. GeneralAssembly’s Third Committee because it seemed to contradict a previous consensus that theReview Conference will focus on implementation of WCAR outcomes rather than issuesnegotiated at WCAR, including contemporary forms of racism and intolerance.101 On February 27, 2008, President Bush appointed a Special Envoy to the OIC, SadaCumber. The envoy’s mission is to explain U.S. foreign policy to the OIC and Muslimcommunities worldwide, and to establish broader engagement with the organization —particularly related to education, women’s rights, health, and science and technology. Formore information, see [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/101432.htm] and[http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/102742.htm].102 Statement by Ambassador Masood Khan on behalf of the Organization of the IslamicConference (OIC), Organizational Session of the Preparatory Committee of the DurbanReview Conference, August 27, 2007.103 Members of the Bureau were elected at the first organizational meeting of the PreparatoryCommittee. A representative from Libya was elected as Chairperson. Vice-Chairpersonswere elected from Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Croatia, Cuba(as Vice-Chairperson-Rapporteur), Estonia, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Norway,Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, and Turkey.104 Seven Bureau members belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.105 The first organizational session was held from August 27 to 31, 2007; the firstsubstantive session from April 21 to May 2, 2008; and the second substantive session washeld from October 6 to 17, 2008. A third substantive session will be held from April 15 to17, 2009. All sessions are held in Geneva, Switzerland. See [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/racism/DurbanReview/sessions.htm].

Conference.100 Other countries, particularly members of the Organization of theIslamic Conference (OIC),101 contend that the Review Conference should focus notonly on implementation of WCAR outcomes but also on “the contemporary scourgeof racism,” including the plight and suffering of the Palestinian people and thedefamation of religions, particularly Islam.102

Composition of the Conference Bureau (Group of 21). On August 27,2007, the Review Conference Preparatory Committee elected a Bureau of 21members (Group of 21) to determine Conference modalities and objectives.103 Anumber of Conference observers and participants have expressed concern about thecomposition of the Group, which includes countries that expressed anti-Israelsentiments at WCAR, including Iran, Indonesia, and Senegal.104 Some areparticularly concerned that Libya and Cuba — states that many view as anti-Israeliand anti-democratic — are Bureau Chair and Vice-Chairperson Rapporteur.

Organizational Meetings and Intergovernmental Working GroupDrafts. To prepare for the Review Conference, participating governments haveattended several organizational meetings to consider the scope and agenda of theReview Conference.105 Some governments also have participated in meetings of thenewly established Intersessional Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group ofthe Preparatory Committee, which is tasked with reviewing recommendations

CRS-20

106 The Intersessional Open-ended Working Group was proposed by the Group of 21 andcreated at the first substantive session in May 2008. It met in Geneva from May 25 to 30,2008, and on September 5, 2008. It will meet again on November 27, 2008. ZohrabMnatsakanian, Ambassador of Armenia, was designated Chairperson of the working groupby the Preparatory Committee. See U.N. document, A/CONF.211/PC.2/4, April 16, 2008.107 “Outcome Document — Inventory of Issues,” May 27, 2008, available at[http://www.eyeontheun.org/durban.asp?p=577].108 The Latin America and Caribbean regional session was held in Brasilia, Brazil, from June17 to 19, 2008, and the African session was held in Abuja, Nigeria, from August 24 to 26,2008. The European and Asian regional groups did not hold regional meetings because nomember states in either region volunteered to act as host. Instead, countries held informalconsultations and exchanged written views to draft regional documents (CRS discussionswith OHCHR, October 2008).109 U.N. document, A/CONF.211/PC.3, August 26, 2008, paragraphs 21 and 32, respectively.110 Ibid, paragraph 48.111 Ibid, preamble, p. 3, “Calling upon the Durban Review Conference to address the issueof reparations for people of African descent with reference to paragraphs 164, 165, and 166of the Durban Programme of Action.” Several provisions also mention slavery and the trans-Atlantic slave trade (preamble and paragraphs 60, 62).

submitted by countries and other stakeholders for possible inclusion in the ReviewConference outcome document.106 Some have expressed concern with draftsproposed by the Working Group. In May 2008, for example, the Working Groupcirculated a list of issues that may be included in the Conference outcome document.The list specifically referred to the “plight of the Palestinian people” and stated thatthe situation in the occupied Palestinian territories violates a range of civil andpolitical rights.107

Regional Meeting Outcome Documents. Many governments havealready met at regional sessions where they shared best practices for combatingracism and negotiated text to be incorporated into the Review Conference outcomedocuments. Two regions, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Africa, heldregional sessions and agreed to regional outcome documents. The Asian andEuropean regional groups agreed to an outcome document without holding regionalmeetings.108 The outcome documents from the Africa and Asia regional sessionshave again generated controversy among some Conference participants and observersdue to their apparent focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict and, to a lesser extent, onreparations and compensation for slavery. Some view the Africa outcome documentas unbalanced because it focuses on Islamophobia as a particularly serious form ofreligious hatred and refers to “the plight of the Palestinian people under foreignoccupation.”109 It also urges states to issue formal apologies to victims of colonialismand historic injustices,110 and calls upon the Review Conference to address the issueof reparations for people of African descent.111

Similarly, the Asian outcome document expresses “deep concern for the plightof Palestinian refugees who were forced to leave their homes because of war and

CRS-21

112 “Contribution of the Asian Region to the Durban Review Conference,” October 8, 2008,paragraph 26.113 Ibid, paragraphs 27 and 18.114 Ibid, paragraph 19.115 Ibid, paragraph 45.116 U.N. document, A/CONF.211/PC.3/3, June 18, 2008, paragraph 73.117 Ibid, paragraph 159.118 U.N. document, A/CONF.211/PC/WG.2/CRP.1, October 27, 2008, available at[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/racism/DurbanReview/sessions.htm] under number6, “Compilation of proposals (CRP.1).”119 As of October 16, 2008, the Preparatory Committee has discussed paragraphs 1 to 146of the draft document.

racial policies of the occupying power.”112 It re-emphasizes the responsibility toprovide international protection for the Palestinian people under occupation, and callsfor an international effort to “bring foreign occupation, together with all its racialpractices, to an end” in Jerusalem.113 The document reaffirms that “foreignoccupation founded on settlements” contradicts the U.N. Charter and constitutes aviolation of international human rights and a “new kind of apartheid, a crime againsthumanity, a form of genocide, and a serious threat to peace and security.”114 TheAsian document also reiterates its call on states to “apologize and pay reparations”for slavery and the slave trade.115

The outcome document agreed to by the Latin American and Caribbean statesdoes not refer to the situation in the Middle East. It identifies the need for progressin the implementation of measures to ensure “just and adequate reparation” forvictims of racism.116 It also reiterates concerns regarding violence and discriminationcommitted against individuals on the grounds of sexual orientation and genderidentity.117

Draft Review Conference Outcome Document (as of October 16,2008). On October 27, 2008, the Office of the High Commissioner for HumanRights published a compilation of Review Conference outcome document proposalssubmitted by delegations during the second substantive session of the ReviewConference Preparatory Committee.118 The compilation reflects U.N. memberdiscussions and contributions to the Review Conference draft outcome document asof October 16, 2008.119 Text that has been objected to by certain member states wasplaced in brackets [bracketed] for further discussion. In the coming months, theIntersessional Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group will continue tonegotiate the outcome document and report back to the third substantive session ofthe Preparatory Committee, which will be held in Geneva from April 15 to 29, 2009.

Some are concerned that text in the October 18, 2008, draft outcome document,both bracketed and non-bracketed, focuses disproportionately on Israel and possiblylimits freedom of expression. One section, for example, “[Reiterates concern aboutthe plight of the Palestinian people and other inhabitants of Arab Territories under

CRS-22

120 Section one, part B, paragraph 136, U.N. document, A/CONF.211/PC/WG.2/CRP.1.121 Section one, part B, paragraph 137, U.N. document, A/CONF.211/PC/WG.2/CRP.1. Inaddition, other bracketed language reaffirms that foreign occupation founded on settlements“[constitutes a serious violation of human rights and humanitarian law, a new kind ofapartheid, a crime against humanity, a form of genocide and a serious threat to internationalpeace and security.].” (Section four, part A, paragraph 9.)122 Section five, paragraph 16 of the draft outcome document urges states to “[...adopt andenforce legal and administrative measures at the national and local levels, or to strengthenexisting measures, with the aim of preventing and punishing expressly and specificallycontemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance inpublic and private life...].”123 Section one, part A, paragraph 41, “Some of the most worrying trends since 2001 includeracio-religious profiling and discrimination, defamation of Muslims, their faith and beliefs.”124 See, for example, “Shattering the Red Lines: The Durban II Draft Declaration,”U.N.Watch, October 2008, and “U.N. Releases New Draft of the Durban II Final Document,”Eye on the UN, November 8, 2008. 125 See “U.S. Response” section for more information.

foreign occupation....].”120 Another section “[Condemns the fact that the Palestinianpeople continue to be denied the fundamental right to self determination....]”121

Additionally, some argue that the text could provide countries with authority tocensor the media and invade the private lives of citizens based on their owndefinition of racism.122 Some are also apprehensive about draft language that appearsto focus on discrimination against Islam to the exclusion of other religions.123

Moreover, some maintain that sections of the draft outcome document for the ReviewConference were already discussed and agreed to at WCAR in 2001.124

According to some, such concerns indicate that the Review Conference willlikely revive the controversies that surrounded WCAR by focusing on Israel. Othersargue, however, that the draft outcome document is still in its preliminary stages andemphasize that the final outcome document to be considered at the ReviewConference has not been negotiated or finalized. Supporters point to the differencebetween early WCAR drafts in 2001 that equated Zionism with racism and the finalDurban Declaration and Program of Action, which contained, in the view of many,relatively moderate language by comparison.

U.S. Funding of the Review Conference

Bush Administration officials have indicated that the United States will not fundthe Review Conference or its preparatory process unless it is proven that theConference will not become a platform for anti-Semitic behavior.125 The finaldecision regarding U.S. funding of the Conference, however, will be made by theBarack Obama Administration or Members of the 111th Congress. If the 111th

Congress does not enact legislation prohibiting U.S. funding for the ReviewConference, the Obama Administration may decide on its own to withhold the U.S.proportionate share of U.S. contributions prior to the Conference. If such a scenariooccurred, it would raise the question as to whether the Administration would releasefunding for after the Conference if the outcome was acceptable to the United States.

CRS-23

126 The Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriation Act,2008 (Division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 P.L. 110-161). Congressprohibits U.S. contributions to support the Council unless (1) the Secretary of State certifiesto the Committees on Appropriations that Council funding is “in the national interest of theUnited States” or (2) the United States is a member of the Council. On April 8, 2008,Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad stated that the United States would withhold funding for theCouncil due to its focus on Israel. U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release#075(08).127 CRS discussions with OHCHR, October 2008.128 U.N. document A/C.3/63/L.70 [draft], November 17, 2008.129 For more information on Review Conference funding, see the “Objectives, Funding, andParticipation” section.130 Serge Schmemann, “The Accord on Racism: U.S. Walkout; Was it Repudiated orJustified by the Conference’s Accord?” New York Times, September 9, 2001. Also see the“WCAR Outcomes: Durban Declaration and Program of Action” section.131 Some supporters, for example, note that Israel stated that it was “satisfied that the clausesfull of hate and incitement against it and the Jewish nation were removed from theconference’s final outcome document.” Serge Schmemann, New York Times, September 9,2001. Also see “Israel’s reaction to the conclusion of the U.N. Conference Against Racism

(continued...)

Specifically, some Members of the 110th Congress proposed that the UnitedStates withhold a proportionate share of its U.N. assessed contributions,approximately 22%, from the U.N. regular budget, which is used to fund theConference. Withholding funds in this manner would not affect the Conferencebecause assessed contributions finance the U.N. regular budget in its entirety and notspecific parts of it. The U.S. decision to withhold a proportionate share of fundingfrom the U.N. Human Rights Council for FY2008126 would not affect funding for theDurban Review Conference or its preparatory process because funding for bothmechanisms falls under separate parts of the budget of the U.N. Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights.127

As of November 17, 2008, the Secretary-General estimates that the cost of theReview Conference and its preparatory process will be $3,754,800.128 However, theSecretary-General will seek only $570,400 in additional funding because heanticipates that the balance of $3,184,400 will be absorbed by other related parts ofthe U.N. regular budget.129

WCAR Outcome Documents and U.S. Participation

Some suggest that the United States should participate in and provide fundingfor the Durban Review Conference in part because the final text that addresses thesituation in Israel and Palestine in the Durban Declaration and Program of Actionwas significantly toned down from drafts that led to the U.S. withdrawal.130 Someargue that the U.S. and Israeli withdrawals from WCAR were a turning point innegotiations and sent a powerful diplomatic message to Conference participants.They contend that the withdrawals pressured other governments to adopt moremoderate language on the Middle East in the final outcome documents.131

CRS-24

131 (...continued)in Durban,” and “The Conclusion of the Durban Conference: Comments by Israeli Leadersand Officials,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Releases, September 9, 2001.132 Rep. Tom Lantos, “The Durban Debacle: An Insider’s View of the U.N. WorldConference Against Racism,” The Fletcher Forum on World Affairs, The Fletcher Schoolof Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, vol. 26:I, Winter/Spring 2002.133 Such perspectives apply to United States-United Nations relations beyond WCAR andthe Durban Review Conference. In 1974, for example, during the 29th session of the U.N.General Assembly, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John A. Scali stated,“Each time that this Assembly makes a decision which a significantly minority of membersregard as unfair or one-sided, it further erodes vital support for the United Nations amongthe minority....” He stated that at the time, the General Assembly demonstrated a “sharplyincreased tendency ... to disregard its normal procedures to benefit the side which enjoys thefavor of the majority, and to silence, and even exclude, the representatives of Member Stateswhose policies the majority condemns.” See “U.S. Position at the 29th U.N. GeneralAssembly,” U.S. Department of State Publication 8800, No. 13, International Organizationand Conference Series 119, February 1975.134 For a discussion of the possible implications of the United States withholding fundingfrom the United Nations, see CRS Report RL33848, United Nations Reform: U.S. Policyand International Perspective: U.S. Policy and International Perspectives, by LuisaBlanchfield.

Conversely, some contend that the language in the Declaration and Program ofAction remains unacceptable to the United States. To support this view, opponentspoint to the Bush Administration’s policy of consistently voting against resolutionssupporting the Review Conference in U.N. fora. They maintain that the Declarationand Program of Action unfairly single out one regional conflict and refer to the plightof only one party — the Palestinians — with no mention of Israel.132

Political and Diplomatic Impact of U.S. Engagement

For some, the question of U.S. participation or non-participation in the DurbanReview Conference touches on the broader issue of U.S. engagement in the U.N.system. Supporters contend that U.S. participation in U.N. efforts such as theReview Conference is important to the success and credibility of the United Nationsas a whole. They argue that instead of withdrawing from U.N. conferences that haveprocesses or outcomes it opposes, the United States should fully participate and workfrom within to build member state coalitions in support of U.S. policies. If the UnitedStates does not fully participate in U.N. fora, some argue, U.N. member state actionsmight be determined by groups of member states advocating agendas that arecontrary to U.S. interests. They maintain that U.S. absence from such U.N. effortscould create a vacuum in which views opposed by the United States hold supreme.133

Supporters contend that a piecemeal and selective approach to participation in theUnited Nations damages the U.S. negotiating position and its influence both withinand outside of the U.N. system.134 Moreover, some argue that U.S. engagement inU.N. human rights efforts such as the Review Conference provides a valuableinternational tool for groups and individuals battling racism in countries wherehuman rights is not a priority.

CRS-25

Opponents of U.S. participation in the Review Conference maintain that U.S.engagement would give undeserved legitimacy to U.N. mechanisms that provide aplatform for member states to target Israel. They also argue that it would imply thatthe United States supports the anti-Semitism demonstrated at WCAR as well as whatmany perceive as unbalanced language in the Durban Declaration and Program ofAction. According to some, U.S. non-participation in the Review Conference sendsa clear message to U.N. member states that repeatedly targeting one country andregional conflict in U.N. fora is unacceptable to the United States. They contend thatthe long-term political impact of such a message outweighs the short-term diplomaticimpact of U.S. non-participation or withdrawal. These opponents therefore agreewith the Bush Administration’s decision not to participate in the preparatory processuntil, as U.S. officials say, it is proven that the Review Conference will not becomea platform for anti-Semitism. They argue that holding out the possibility of U.S.participation — as well as the participation of other like-minded governments whohave made similar statements — may persuade U.N. member states to take a morebalanced approach when drafting and negotiating Review Conference outcomedocuments in preparation for the April 2009 Conference.